You have been told before what is wrong with this logic but you are resistent to this learning so there's absolutely no point in repeating how you are wrong.
Maybe a good starting point for you would be to draw your attention back to the Schiit Bifrost measurements that you posted here and my reply just after - that you ignored - as to why you think your measurements ( & resultant denigration of Schitt) are so different to Sterophile's measurements? They measured two different Bifrosts for their review here
Do you still think your measurements & conclusions are correct? Do they reflect some condition(s) in your system that you are ignoring?
Caesar,
There are essentially three primary technical concerns when connecting a DAC at the end of a digital signal chain. Concern one, is that no data errors be introduced by the connecting interface. Concern two, is that jitter not be introduced by the interface. Data errors are uncommon over short, relatively low rate, interface links such as are found in home systems. Jitter can be introduced by the digital signal interface via impedance mismatch (which applies to wired and optical interfaces both), or via common-mode noise coupling over the interface. Concern three, is that common-mode noise can also directly couple to the analog output stages of a DAC, or even to the analog stages of a following pre-amp or power amp, through a DAC's wired digital signal interfaces. Optical digital signal interfaces are free of concern number three.
If different DAC digital interface cables sound different it is most likely due to their exhibiting differing jitter introduction profiles, and/or directly coupling common-mode noise in to the analog stages of any following equipment.
Then why is it being called noise?jkeny is correct. Noise that's harmful to a system does not have to be heard as noise to have an affect.
In general if you have artifacts that climb with volume, something is broken. Low level fizzle or hum doesn't mean much of anything if you hear it with your ear at the speaker. The noise that's destructive is changing the music itself, happening at the transistors and other IC's. The result is the music sounds different, not full of noise.
Do you want to explain what you mean by that question? It might help your understanding to expand the question?Then why is it being called noise?
Then why is it being called noise?
OK, let's take radiated noise from the Ethernet cable. This interference is supposed to get into my high-end DAC even though I am assured by said DAC designer that the thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands of dollars I paid for that DAC over a 50 cent chip in my computer, is not subject to such vagaries. You are saying that this noise is not audible when the DAC is producing silence. But that when it plays music, it applies an amplification factor to that radiated noise? And that you now hear said noise in the midst of much louder music as opposed to silence? How could that be?
Can you tell me why I don't have recourse with my DAC designer if this is an issue? Is it an impossibility to design a DAC which doesn't have audible noise due to Ethernet cabling? What makes it impossible?
So is Mike's DAC a good or bad design?Oh, BTW...
I don't believe you were sincere about your dollars to performance statement/question either. We both know you find good and bad designs at all levels of price, and technical performance doesn't define subjective performance.
I am just going by what Mike said:Do you want to explain what you mean by that question? It might help your understanding to expand the question?
noise, noise, noise.
I'm switching to a fiber optic with my Ethernet. no noise.
obviously you have to switch every 'leg' on either side of your Gigibit switch.
I am just going by what Mike said:
What type do you think he meant? And why?
I am just going by what Mike said:
What type do you think he meant? And why?
Fine. Let's move on.Dodging your opportunity for self-learning, as usual, Amir
As I said you are blind to your own blindness & will always remain so once you adopt these types of self-defeating techniquesof avoiding learning.
You have had at least two opportunites to learn something in the last 2 pages but have avidly avoided both:
- You asked a specific question about noise which has a number of assumptions you need to state explicitly & you refuse to do so, this avoiding any attempt at learning
- you have presented measurements which are contradicted by Stereophile & you refuse to answer why.
Before the Diamond, I tried the Forrest and also cables by Nordost, Cardas, Blue Jeans, Monster and Monoprice. Nothing.....
Like Bruce I have also tried several different Ethernet cables and heard no sonic differences
So is Mike's DAC a good or bad design?
Darn tooting. The man is masterful in what he does. Took just a few posts to break my back and cry uncle. I am at his mercy from here on:Am I to infer from Amir's response that he is wrong and rather than saying that, he is saying "fine, let's move on"![]()
I would suppose that routers and switches, and perhaps their power supplies, have a much higher impact than cables. Did anyone try different brands and models?
John
I certainly haven't tried as many as Bruce so my limited experience might taint your findings.
I'm interested in the questions posed in post 31 and the reply in post #32
Am I to infer from Amir's response that he is wrong and rather than saying that, he is saying "fine, let's move on"![]()
Glad someone caught on. The question for Steve and Bruce shouldn't be what cables they tried, but what equipment they use since they've nullified ethernet as a source of problems.
![]() | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |